GP2 and P100

Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a P166? Does MMX have any bearing on the matter? -- Dave Taylor IT Training, Assessment and Consultancy London England

> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a > P166? Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an acceptable fps. Little, if any at all, but still worth having over a standard P166 IMHO, but a P200MMX is a better buy ATM. Cheers! Marc -- Marc J. Nelson Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com <remove '_*_' before replying>

On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:58:00 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson" >> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a >> P166? >Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an >acceptable fps. What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks) --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

What!!! 15fps? - that's so slow. I only like to play with 35+ fps and <100% occupancy. I think it's more driveable with a faster frame rate. It's like driving a real car and blinking your eyes. The slower you blink you eyes, the more likely you are to hit a wall!! j PS - has anyone played GP2 on a 333Mhz Pentium II (with AGP graphics) ? - i'm thinking of upgrading, but only if GP2 kicks arse on it. Thanks

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:58:00 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson" >>> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a >>> P166? >>Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an >>acceptable fps. >What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track >textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser >tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks) >--- >The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

> What!!! 15fps? - that's so slow. I only like to play with 35+ fps an > d <100% > occupancy. How do you manage that then? GP2's maximum frame rate is 25! 8?) *Peter* 8-)

with

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 16:58:00 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson" >>> Is there a significant difference between running it on a P100 and a >>> P166? >>Significant, but you still can't run all the graphics with an >>acceptable fps. >What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track >textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser >tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks) >--- >The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better. -- Ian Blakeley RN http://www.blakeley.demon.co.uk "To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare is not a multiple choice question

> What`s your definition of acceptable? I have everything but the track > textures on, and get a consistent 15fps. (Hell, at some of the sparser > tracks, I could probably push 20+, only 48% occupancy on some tracks) My definition (as yours) is a matter of opinion, but for the sake of argument, I tend to throw fits at anything less than 20fps for any given sim...To maintain this in GP2, at least half of the textures or objects need to be switched off. This on a P166, which only shows a marginal improvement over the P100 (+ - 10-15% - seemingly gone are the days where the next-gen chip blows the doors off it's predecessor (ie: 286 > 386 > 486 > Pentium). The subject at hand was P100 vs P166 and GP2...I find it dificult to accept your claim of full detail (less track) 15-20fps + occ at 48%... (I guess anything's possible though) Unless you were refering to a faster chip (P200 or PP200 and above). However, 15fps sounds about right, but I'd wager your occ is closer to 100-150%, with occational spikes in the 200 range (hot laping). I'm just shooting in the dark, since I don't know a thing about your system. Cheers! Marc -- Marc J. Nelson Sim Racing News - http://www.simnews.com <remove '_*_' before replying>

It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to hit a wall. --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:42:53 -0800, "Marc J. Nelson" >The subject at hand was P100 vs P166 and GP2...I find it dificult to >accept your claim of full detail (less track) 15-20fps + occ at 48%... >(I guess anything's possible though) Unless you were refering to a >faster chip (P200 or PP200 and above). nope, Intel P166, but I am talking seriously sparse tracks like the PGP ones, where there isn`t much trackside detail. Throw Monaco at it, and it`s 160% roughly in some places. Aside from Monaco, and (for some reason) one particular corner at Hockenheim, the average is around 80%, but on some of the add on track`s it`s as low as 40%. --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny

% It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it % for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to % hit a wall. I my opinion, I have found that I am less likely to hit a wall the faster the frame rate is. This provides better control. It seems that every fps gained in GP2 translates to better lap times (for me at least). -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures > turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes > down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better. > -- What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong!

with >> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures >> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes >> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better. >> -- > What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong! Nothing. I'm happy with the current frame rate. The point of the post was to backup what was already said. You don't need to have a mega high frame rate to enjoy the game. -- Ian Blakeley RN http://www.blakeley.demon.co.uk "To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare is not a multiple choice question

Quoted text (14 lines)

> with > >> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures > >> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes > >> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better. > >> -- > > What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong! > Nothing. I'm happy with the current frame rate. The point of the post > was to backup what was already said. You don't need to have a mega high > frame rate to enjoy the game. > --

"Nothing"? I don't understand. Anyway, I should have been more clear about what I was saying. I mean't that I would have thought a higher frame rate would be easier on the eyes as are higher refresh rates with the monitor. Better fps certainly enable smoother driving, better lap times, better control, better feel, better appreciation of physics model and a far more enjoyable experience generally. After using ICR2 for the last 6 months, less than 30fps is no longer worth it. If you use GP2 at 25fps you will have a very noticably more precise car.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>% It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it >% for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to >% hit a wall. >I my opinion, I have found that I am less likely to hit a wall the >faster the frame rate is. This provides better control. It seems that >every fps gained in GP2 translates to better lap times (for me at least).

Certainly when your processor power stays the same and you started with >100 PO at 15fps <G> JoH Please remove *anti-spam* from the email when replying. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= When everything else failed, we can still become im- mortal by making an enormous blunder.... John Kenneth Galbraith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

with

Quoted text (25 lines)

>> with >> >> Exactly. I am able to run at about 25fps with some of the textures >> >> turned off, but can't look at the screen for too long, so the fps goes >> >> down to 15, and the detail level goes up. much better. >> >> -- >> > What??????? Seems to me this is EXACTLY wrong! >> Nothing. I'm happy with the current frame rate. The point of the post >> was to backup what was already said. You don't need to have a mega high >> frame rate to enjoy the game. >> -- > "Nothing"? I don't understand. > Anyway, I should have been more clear about what I was saying. I >mean't that I would have thought a higher frame rate would be easier on >the eyes as are higher refresh rates with the monitor. Better fps >certainly enable smoother driving, better lap times, better control, >better feel, better appreciation of physics model and a far more >enjoyable experience generally. After using ICR2 for the last 6 months, >less than 30fps is no longer worth it. If you use GP2 at 25fps you will >have a very noticably more precise car.

Well, I'm off on Holiday for a week this evening, so when I get back I will try with all the graphics turned off with a high frame rate and see if there is a difference in the way the car "drives". Keep an eye on this thread when I get back. -- Ian Blakeley RN http://www.blakeley.demon.co.uk "To be, or not to be- that is the question" William Shakespeare is not a multiple choice question

Quoted text (10 lines)

>>% It`s a game, it`s playable, who cares? It runs fine for me, I play it >>% for FUN, i`m not obsessed. 15fps or 35fps, i`m still just as likely to >>% hit a wall. >>I my opinion, I have found that I am less likely to hit a wall the >>faster the frame rate is. This provides better control. It seems that >>every fps gained in GP2 translates to better lap times (for me at least). >Certainly when your processor power stays the same and you started with >100 PO >at 15fps <G>

I remember when I was playing F1GP on the old Miggy, you used to get around 5fps MAX! When we`re getting to that realm, I`ll admit, it's hard to control, but with the computer now polling 15 times a second (on average) to see what you`re doing, I can`t honestly say there has been any situation where a higher frame rate would have saved me. When i've crashed, it`s been my fault. Blaming the FPS brings to mind the old saying "A bad workman always blames his tools." --- The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny